<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (8) TMI 127 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235832</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on HR Coils could not be denied on the allegation of bogus procurement where the evidence did not show that the invoiced goods were not actually received or supplied. The authorised signatory confirmed receipt of the goods, while the dealers&#039; statements referred only to fictitious dealings in CR Sheets and CR Strips and did not negate the HR Coils transactions. The invoices carried truck numbers, yet no enquiry was made of the truck owners. Collateral material from another dealer&#039;s irregularities was insufficient to disprove the respondent&#039;s receipt of the goods, so the credit claim was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:40:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 127 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235832</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on HR Coils could not be denied on the allegation of bogus procurement where the evidence did not show that the invoiced goods were not actually received or supplied. The authorised signatory confirmed receipt of the goods, while the dealers&#039; statements referred only to fictitious dealings in CR Sheets and CR Strips and did not negate the HR Coils transactions. The invoices carried truck numbers, yet no enquiry was made of the truck owners. Collateral material from another dealer&#039;s irregularities was insufficient to disprove the respondent&#039;s receipt of the goods, so the credit claim was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>